By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—SCOTUS: California: A special report has been issued by CRPA requesting industry support in the Boland v. Bonta case. A worthwhile read to understand what California gun owners have been facing for the past several decades and can continue to face in the implantation of SB452 passed in 2023; Three cases are currently scheduled for Oral Arguments on April 11: May v, Bonta, Carmaker v, Bonta and Wolford v. Lopez; SAF v. BATFE (23-11157): Appellants opening brief was filed on Jan. 22; Gates v. Polis (1:22-cv-01866): NFGR and individuals are challenging the 2022 law passed in Colorado banning high capacity magazines. On Jan. 23, the Court granted a temporary stay until June 30, waiting for the SCOTUS decision on United States v. Rahimi; Lane v. Rocah (NY assault weapons case): A stay requested by the defendants was denied by Judge Karas—the case continues; Hunter v. Cortland Housing Authority: On Jan. 30, Judge Glenn T. Suddaby granted the plaintiffs’ consolidated motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.
SCOTUS
SCOTUS: Second Amendment Attorney Stephen Holbrook writes about NRA v. Vullo and Garland v. Cargill two cases currently before the U.S. Supreme Court
CIRCUIT COURTS
California: Ninth Circuit
Boland v. Bonta: A special report has been issued by CRPA requesting industry support in the Boland v. Bonta case. A worthwhile read to understand what California gun owners have been facing for the past several decades and can continue to face in the implantation of SB452 that passed in 2023. The Ninth Circuit heard the case on Aug. 23, 2023, and since that date nothing has transpired.
Background: In 2013 the California legislature passed the “Unsafe Handgun Act” (UHA) creating the “handgun roster” which limited which handguns law-abiding Californians were allowed to purchase. Thus only pre-2013 handguns could be sold. New handgun requirements included a loaded chamber indicator, a magazine disconnect “safety” and micro stamping. On March 20, 2023, Judge Cormac Carney issued a Preliminary injunction against the entire UHA. After Carney’s PI it took almost a week for Attorney General Raoul to announce that California will appeal to the Ninth Circuit. In Raoul’s press release it says, “DOJ is filing an appeal to overturn the district court’s preliminary injunction, and filing an emergency motion to stay, or halt, the portions of the order that would ban enforcement of the UHA’s requirements that semiautomatic pistols for retail sale have a chamber load indicator and magazine disconnect mechanism. The motion does not seek to immediately stop the part of the court’s decision enjoining the microstamping requirement.” The microstamping requirements are still under a preliminary injunction.
However, in September 2023 Gov. Gavin Newsom signed SB452, a new microstamping bill, which includes an implementation date of 1/1/2028. The Ninth Circuit will be deciding on the two requirements that remain as deterrents to adding more handguns to the roster: A chamber load indicator (or CLI) is a “device that plainly indicates that a cartridge is in the firing chamber.” Cal. Penal Code §§16380, 31910(b)(4). A magazine disconnect mechanism (or MDM) prevents a semiautomatic pistol with a detachable magazine from firing the cartridge in the chamber unless the magazine is fully inserted into the firearm.
Ninth Circuit panel: On Jan. 28 the following Notice of Oral Argument was set for April 11 at 9 AM for the following cases in San Francisco: May v, Bonta, Carmaker v, Bonta and Wolford v. Lopez, a case from Hawaii. However there is a NOTE:Although your case is currently scheduled for oral argument the panel may decide to submit the case on the briefs instead.
Illinois: Seventh Circuit
Vandermyde v. Cook County: This case is against the Cook County gun and ammunition tax begun 2022. The District Court ruled in favor of Cook County and the case was appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Texas: Fifth Circuit:
SAF v. BATFE (23-11157):Appellants opening brief was filed on Jan. 22, 2024
Background: Pistol Brace rule: published 1/31/23—in effect May 1, 2023 At least four lawsuits were filed: Mock v. Garland, SAF v. BATFE, Texas v. ATF, and Brito v. ATF. In the latter caseJudge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk of the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction against the ATF’s pistol brace rule and stayed it “in its entirety”, quoting Mock v. Garland’s Circuit Court ruling that stated the rule “must be set aside as unlawful”. Now the decision on pistol braces in the Fifth Circuit is back at the District Court level. On Dec. 22, 2023 Judge Kurt D. Englehardt, District Judge in the SAF v. BATFE case, ruled:
“It Is Ordered that Appellees’ unopposed motion to consolidate this case with case Nos. 23-11199, Mock v. Garland, 23-11203, Britto v. Bureau of Alcohol, 23-11204, Texas Gun Rights v. Bureau of Alcohol, and 23-40685, State of Texas v. Bureau of Alcohol is GRANTED.”
The case continues with all pistol brace cases under one judge at the District Court level with the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
DISTRICT COURTS
Colorado: Tenth Circuit
Gates v. Polis (1:22-cv-01866): NFGR and individuals are challenging the 2022 law passed in Colorado banning high capacity magazines. On Jan. 23, the Court granted a temporary stay until June 30, 2024, waiting the SCOTUS decision on United States v. Rahimi.
Background: This case was filed in July 2022. The Plaintiffs sought a Preliminary Injunction and on Aug. 24, 2022 a hearing date was scheduled for Nov. 17 and 18, 2022, which was later vacated and a scheduling conference was set for Nov. 28, 2022. Throughout the next eight months the Defendant Gov. Polis delayed the case with motions to amend/Correct/Modify orders. On July 10, 2023, the Defendant gave notice of three related cases dealing with Second Amendment issues. On Sept. 11, 2023, both Gov. Jared Polis and the Plaintiffs separately filed motions for Summary Judgment. On Oct. 1, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed their response to the Defendants motion for Summary Judgement. Throughout the course of 2023 there was a great deal of back and for concerning restricted filing.
Illinois: Seventh Circuit
Schoenthal v. Raoul (3:22-cv-50326): On Jan. 29, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgement.
Background: The case deals with firearms licensees carrying on public transportation. It was filed in September 2022 and on March 1 the plaintiffs filed a memo in support of summary judgement and a permanent injunction. The case is being brought by the Second Amendment Foundation and a synopsis is available. On Dec. 13, 2023, Judge Iain D. Johnston denied a motion by Kim Foxx, the State’s Attorney of Cook County, for a stay pending SCOTUS’ decision in United States v. Rahimi.
New York: Second Circuit
Lane v. Rocah (7:22-cv-10989): On Jan. 22, 2024, Superintendent of NY State Police Col. Dominick Chiumento requested Judge Kenneth M. Karas for a stay pending the Second Circuit case of NAGR v. Lamont. Judge Karas, on a copy of the plaintiff’s letter opposing a stay, wrote, “The Court will not impose a stay. Defendants are to explain, in a letter due by 1/30/24, what discovery they need and how long they need to obtain it. Plaintiffs are to respond by 2/2/24.”
Background: On Dec. 30, 2022, J. Mark Lane and James Sears filed a complaint against New York State’s so-called assault weapons ban seeking a permanent injunction. Attorney General Letitia James, a defendant in this case, spent the better part of a year getting removed from this case. The case became Lane v. Rocah. Then the remaining defendants tried to get the judge to deny the plaintiffs standing in this case. On Jan. 4, the defendants’ motions were denied and a schedule of new motion dates was set.
Hunter v. Cortland Housing Authority (5:23-cv-01540-GTS-ML): On Jan. 30, Judge Glenn T. Suddaby granted the plaintiffs’ consolidated motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.
Background: The Cortland Housing Authority, a public housing authority, categorically bans the possession of“any firearms (operable or inoperable) or other weapons as defined by the laws and courts of the State of New York anywhere on the property of CHA.”The plaintiffs are seeking a Temporary Restraining Order and an emergency motion for Preliminary Injunction as well as charging that this is violation of their Second Amendment rights and are seeking a jury trial. This case is being heard by Judge Glenn T. Suddaby of the Antonyuk case.
State Court
New Hampshire: Hardy v. Chester Arms: The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s grams of summary judgement to Chester Arms and the NH Department of Safety.
Background: Two police officers who were shot by Ian MacPherson sued the gun store, Chester Arms, Inc. that allowed the sale to proceed. At the trial court level the decision was in favor of Chester Arms. The two police officers, Ryan Hardy and Matthew O’Connor, then appealed to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. The case was argued on Feb. 14, 2023, and the NH Supreme Court reached their decision on Jan. 30, 2024.
